[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Scholarly merit? How can you take seriously a guy who would say Iran is showing marvelous restraint in the face of Israeli and USA threats, this AFTER the president of Iran said Israel should be "wiped off the map," comments universally denounced from one end of the globe to the other, comments which are causing global alarm as this religious nutbar goes looking for nuclear bombs.

Uh, Chomsky brought up Iran in the context of Israel, not Dershowitz.

Therefore its relevant, particularly since Iran is a heavy sponsor of Palestinian terror groups, probably an example of Chomsky's "remarkable restraint" . . . . or more probably, his remarkable ability to ignore facts that are disagreeable to his rear-view mirror view of the world.

I have said in a previous thread that the Iranian President's remarks were more domestic posturing than anything and besides, while the gravity of the statement may indeed be large, they pale in comparison to the convert and overt U.S./Israeli military operations directed against Iran over the past 25 years. What is worse? Saying Israel should be destroyed and doing nothing about it or saying nothing while launching military air strikes against Iranian powerplants and military facilities?

You would probably debate this by pointing out Iran's connection to Palestinian terror organizations which is a fair point. And I concede that this is likely happening but the record shows far more violent terror activity directed against the Iranian state from Israeli/U.S. backing than the other way around. Therefore, Chomsky's point stands in that Iran is showing restraint.

But I don't want this to turn into a debate over Iran and Israel. And if you want to use this as the crux of your argument claiming Dershowitz victory then I implore you to perhaps listen to the debate again using my criteria in my second post of this thread.

Or is that unrelated as well?

No it is not unrelated when it was mentioned near the end of the debate but to disqualify Chomsky's argument is, in my opinion, disingenuous. What is your definition of restraint? Mine is the concerted decision to act against your will. The Presidents calls for Israel to be wiped off the map but yet Iran does nothing about it. In my opinion, you could call that restraint, regardless of how horrible the motivations for the restraint may be. But then again, you really have to look at Israel's lack of restraint in regard to Iran.

One reviewer of the debate wrote this:

At the same time, Chomsky was incapable of ever directly answering a question and felt compelled to inundate the audience with facts and sources that may or not be at all relevent to the question. Then after ticking off a litany of history, he would stop, and assume that he answered the question when it was clear he didn't. At which point people would yell "answer the question!"

I gather that you agree with this review but I would call into question its merit or connection with reality. Both men avoided questions throughout so it would be ignorant to ascribe whether one won or lost based on that criteria. But I agree, Chomsky did evade questions. Dershowitz made things up, relied on a litany of personal attacks and answered questions based entirely on suppositions and brackish generalities. Furthermore, when Dershowitz's had the gumption of engaging in a scholarly critique of Chomsky's thought he was demonstrated to not only selectively quote but to falsely apply ideas that Chomsky had really nothing to do with. Ironically, this seems to be your biggest critique of Chomsky's methods.

Unfortunately, Chomsky preambled every quotation and historical fact with a primary source and refuted many of Dershowitz's claims with accounts on the official record. Dershowitz attempted to muddy Chomsky's points by saying (in bad taste) that they were from 'Planet Chomsky' but never actually or significantly addressed any of Chomsky's sources as faulty.

The title of the debate was "Israel and Palestine After Disengagement- Where Do We Go From Here." On that question, what did Chomsky tell you? The only thing he said is there would be no disengagement and offered a view of ancient history.

Well Chomsky stuck to his belief in that there should be a two state solution. A belief he has held for 30 years. As per quoting ancient history, Dershowitz was the one who kept referring to 1948. Chomsky never mentioned a historical moment before 1972. Of course this was highly relevant because it was a contemporary instance of peace negotiations after a denouement of military hostilities and peace was made with other Arab nations. Not a whole lot has changed from the mid-70s with respect to this problem. The same can't be said for the period right after WW2, of which Dershowitz continually referred to.

That fits the profile of Chomsky in other debates, clinging to a position long discredited, like his blind and bizarre support of Pol Pot long after the exposure of genocide in Cambodia. Bitter about the past but offering nothing for the future and unable to speak to changing conditions.

Irrelevant to this discussion.

In that context, who was avoiding the debate? Why were people yelling "answer the question!!" at him?

I've always found it hilarious that people would be duped into simply accepting a blizzard of footnotes from Chomsky. In fact, he was actually called out on one of them during the debate as demonstratably wrong.

I didn't hear the yelling. But I gather it was when the senior official from Barak's asked a question. This is another typical instance of people desperately grasping at something to criticize him on. The question was, would you support a decision that both sides agreed upon even if it did not meet up to your expectations? Who bloody cares? Big deal. But Chomsky then replied saying that there was a very good solution available and was almost agreed on at Taba before Israel pulled up and that he thinks that is a solution to this problem. Either way, it's a pretty vacuous critique considering the context of this debate.

As per the point he was pointed out to be wrong on, the official said that one person who he quoted was not at the Camp David negotations and Chomsky said he was. It was never resolved but Chomsky did say that the person himself said he was there and to ask him. Again, this is hardly a salient point proving his inaccuracies.

Secondly, under what circumstances would Chomsky lose ANY debate in your mind Haken?

Well he lost a debate with Michel Foucault back in the late '60s.

To address your point: you seem to say that in my mind Chomsky is undefeatable thus trivializing my opinion? Nice tactic. The fact is, from a scholarly standpoint, Chomsky won this debate. Dershowitz unleashed personal attacks and never substantially refuted ANY of Chomsky's points. Either Dershowitz was terribly prepared for this debate (which is likely as he showed no good knowledge of Chomsky's opinions on this issue) or Chomsky pulled the wool over EVERYONE's eyes using faulty self serving sources. Which alternative do you think is more likely?

If you can't take Dershowitz seriously, you certainly can't take Chomsky seriously. They're both one trick ponies.

I agree with this. Chomsky is not a pragmatist and he would be one of the last people (next to Dershowitz) that I would want at the peace negotiations. That doesn't discount my claim that Chomsky won the debate. They're both one trick ponies but Chomsky's trick was better than Dershowitz's this round.

The Israel/Palestinian situation has certainly been far more problematic in the past than it is today . . . . thanks to needed changes on the Palestinian side which have forced the Israeli's to react.

You'd have to be a real sourpuss to not see that concessions on both sides have been pointing to at least the hope for a better future . . . . and it all started with the de-radicalization of the Palestinian Authority which is what the world was waiting for. I've said many times the Isreali excesses and occupation would have received a far more sympathetic hearing globally if a Ghandi or Mandela had been in charge instead of blundering opportunists like Arafat.

I agree with you on these points. With that said, the previous peace agreements were terribly inadequate from a Palestinian perspective. There needs to be a fundamental paradigm shift in the Israeli government to allow real territorial and political concessions to the Palestinians to form a real autonomous state if the violence ever has a hope of ending.

Like I've said before, for a political analyst, Chomsky is a pretty good linguist.

Cowperson

Well for a Cow, you are a pretty good person. :P

sorry for typo, I hate proofreading